Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 6194046" data-attributes="member: 58416">I had problems with 4E too, but they weren't the same problems.  The thing with my 3E example I gave is that I wasn't even trying to optimize.  One thing I've found that seems like a minor detail, but it seems to help 3E (and Pathfinder) a lot is using fractional base saves from 3rd Edition's Unearthed Arcana.  There are a lot of fractions that get rounded along the way during save progression through the levels.  If you take the extra step to actually keep track of them, some classes end up with better saves than they might otherwise have.  In particular, it helps to fix some of the problems with saves when it comes to multiclassing.Also, I've found that a lot of other groups complain about the wizard without actually following some of the game's rules.  In particular, ignoring encumbrance helps the wizard carry the hundreds upon hundreds of scrolls and magic items which I see people talking about a wizard having.  With a (usually) low STR, how is he carrying all of that stuff.  Likewise, it seems to me that choosing to sunder the cleric's holy symbol is a valid tactic.  There still are things about 3rd I feel are broken though.  One of the biggest things which bothers me is how touch AC works.  Thematically, it makes sense.  In actually play (and combined with how D&D levels work,) it makes a lot of low level spells more powerful than they should be.  I'm not a fan of D&D style HP either.  You're right in saying the fighter is really good at damaging an opponent's HP.  The problem is that a lot of D&D spells don't even require me to harm your body to kill you.  What level of spell is sleep?  It's been a while since I've played 3rd, so I forget.  I do remember there being a few levels in PF where it stops being useful, but eventually you just replace it with Deep Slumber.  -------------------------------------------------------It seems to me that there are two very different viewpoints about what D&D should be.  I think a lot of people who like things like Book of 9 Swords and 4th Edition want something which is closer to what I'd call "mythic fantasy."  Though, I wonder if that desire is born of wanting that style or born of a desire for balance.  Personally, I prefer a more gritty and grounded fantasy experience.  I don't view "realism" as something which gets in the way of my elves and dragons and magic; I view it as something which goes hand-in-hand with it and creates a better experience by giving texture and substance to the illusion.  However, I don't believe I can use D&D if that's the experience I want.  That's what prompted me to try other games.  I can certainly enjoy a more mythic experience; I grew up reading the various myths of our world, but -all things being equal- I vastly prefer a style of fantasy which is closer to R. Howard's Conan, Game of Thrones, Spartacus (both the new show and the classic movie,) and a lot of 80s Sword & Sorcery movies as opposed to a style of fantasy which is closer to mythology, wuxia movies, super hero stories, and DBZ.  Neither style is more right or more wrong, but I do believe there are people who want a style that is closer to what I like, but are trying to use editions of D&D (or possibly other games) which are closer to the other end of the spectrum.  If the game isn't giving you what you want, it seems to me that you're better off playing a different game.  That's not a knock toward D&D or those people; it's just something which makes sense to me.  I do understand it can be daunting to try something else.  I've been there.  When all of your friends play a certain way or you're only accustomed to one way of doing things, it can be hard to change.  Brand loyalty might impact some as well.  I guess I just find it odd to fret over why a screwdriver doesn't work very well as a steak knife.  Where I think 3rd Edition sometimes causes problems is in trying to be more than one game at the same time without actually being a modular system.  While I do have find faults with 4th Edition, I think it did something good in that it tried to give D&D a coherent vision.  I may not have agreed with the choice for that vision, but the personality which the game already had was made into a real and tangible thing.  I have a lot of fond memories when it comes to 3rd Edition, but there are times when I think 3rd wasn't entirely sure of what it wanted to be.  There seemed to be a lot of conflicting visions built into the game.  I think where that causes problems for the fanbase is that different groups latched on to different parts of 3rd, and, when 4th became a more codified version of D&D, ze game did not remain ze same.  Anyway... do I find Pathfinder gamey?  To an extent, I do.  However, I think some of the conversation in this thread which pits the amount of gaminess of 3rd Edition against some of the aspects of 4th is a somewhat flawed argument if you ignore that the way HP and levels work in D&D are intended to be "gamey."  I think the modern D&D editions (by that I mean 3rd and 4th; I'm not familiar enough with 1st or 2nd to have an educated opinion on them) and games that have grown from the D&D D20 family are by their very nature gamey to varying extents.  One of the biggest reasons why is because the structure is so heavily vertical when it comes to gaining levels; getting better magic items, and a variety of other things.  I'd vastly prefer a game system which offers more breadth of play rather than continued stacking of numbers for no other reason than to create bigger numbers.</blockquote>

Verification